Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: We should trade for this guy

    Originally posted by ABADays View Post
    Good God . . . *removed*. Just how would you know what Cro did? SPY! Would you have a link to that? Anything at all to substantiate that claim? No, I didn't think so. Freaking amazing. You talk about what a PRO Jackson is. By your accusation against Austin I doubt you know what a professioal is.

    As I posted earlier in this thread using Austin is a bad example.

    When Austin had called out Artest in the New York print there were many of us on PD who said Croshere should STFU. I'm almost afraid to touch this subject because it seems to have that undercurrent feel to it.

    Edit: Haven't seen his name on here for awhile but just did. If not mistaken CableKC was another person that really jumped Croshere's butt at the time too.
    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

    Comment


    • Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Didn't you get the memo, or see all those banners, for first round playoff exits?

      Making the playoffs with no shot of actually winning a series is a BIG deal.
      Because you bet heavily on the Warriors to win any playoff games in Dallas.

      The Pacers could have seeded 6th easily and caught teams like Miami, Toronto or Cleveland. No chance? There is always a chance, especially for teams over .500 (which that team was despite having more road than home games at that point).


      Shade is right about the negatives of Jack. And then he would get hot and light it up, or play stellar defense, or drive for the big foul, or go over and calm down another player flipping out on a ref. He was a walking contradiction for certain, and still is.

      If he was just the good things he would be out of the Pacers salary reach in the first place, there is a reason they can't afford Ray Allen with JO on the team too. You got what you were paying for with Jack.

      Points Per Shot
      Jackson 1.21
      JO 1.17

      Adjusted FG% (adjusted for the extra point you get for the 3pt make)
      Jackson 46.6
      JO 43.6

      Salary last year
      Jackson $6m
      JO $18m

      For the record Quis went PPS 1.14 and AdjFG% at 47 flat...ie, not better than Jack. Quis was paid $5.8m and put those Jack numbers up while missing 30+ games.

      Comment


      • Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
        my own view is that everything will be forgotten/forgiven once the pacers start winning again.

        all the "i wish sjax were still here" statements will sound, well, pointless, just as the whole brad miller issue disappeared when we won 61 games.

        sjax and artest have moved on. my view is that pacer fans (both pro and anti) should as well, but given the disappointing season we had, there's understandly a lot of leftover angst. it will die down eventually.
        Semi-true, but you have seen Peck discussing the Brad Miller deal within the last week. That one isn't dead still.

        Comment


        • Re: I don't want to start a big ugly thing, but...

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          Because you bet heavily on the Warriors to win any playoff games in Dallas.

          The Pacers could have seeded 6th easily and caught teams like Miami, Toronto or Cleveland. No chance? There is always a chance, especially for teams over .500 (which that team was despite having more road than home games at that point).
          (Just for the sake of argument I'll say they won round 1)

          YAY!!! Look at the pretty banner that will hang from the rafters celebrating such an accomplishment!!

          The team with Al, Jax, Saras, and Powell wasn't anywhere near building a championship and Jax was giving TPTB and the community fits with his on and off court behavior.

          Such a great place to be! A team that's just mediocore to win enough to only get minor tweaks that won't make them any better and an alienated fan base that boos their players, when they actually go.

          Atleast because of the trade, everyone knows they suck and MAJOR changes need to be made.

          The ultimate goal is to win a ring, and the Pacers with Jax, Al, Saras, and Powell was going to play 10more games, then sit their asses at home like the rest of Pacers.

          No, I don't think Dun and Murph are the keys to winning a championship. But if you're going to suck and not have a chance, I would rather watch a team that I actually liked personally, than a team full of players I couldn't stand. It's still a business, and they #1 goal of a business is to make money. Losing and character problems were costing the Pacers money. Character problems aren't as big of an issue now.


          This is kind of offtopic, but not really. Stephen Jackson irriated me, while he was here. Now he just makes me sick. Having a mock arrest as your pregame dance or whatever just shows the clueless retard that he is. Being arrested twice while a member of this organization is nothing to poke fun at, especially when those actions killed this franchise a lot more than just basketball wise.

          It's not just rubbing salt in the wound, its more than that.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • Re: We should trade for this guy

            Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
            Jermaniac........who is the coach you want? I'll settle for "coaches" if you have a list but it has to be by name not a generic description. (I'm honestly curious)

            Thank you
            Marc Ivaroni, Mark Jackson. But mostly Ivaroni. I think the guy will be an amazing coach.

            Comment


            • Re: We should trade for this guy

              Originally posted by kybjones View Post
              Just what the world needs.... another Jermainiac thread hijacking.
              I made the thread, how I'm gonna hijack my own thread.

              Comment


              • Re: We should trade for this guy

                I'm sick of talking about Stephen Jackson, that dude is gone and will never come back. I hope he does well with the Warriors and may he win 9 more rings with them. But we need to concentrate on the current team and how we can get back to being a contender, even if it means playing in the Finals against Jackson and the Warriors (if that ever happens count me in as a front row spectator).

                We need to decide to built around JO for another year or ship him and Tinsley and go in full rebuilding mode.

                So every poster like Dat Dude, Ajbry and everyone else who still isn't over the fact that Jackson isn't on our team anymore do us a favor and create your own Jackson forum website and post anything you want on it. I hope this will be the last topic about Jackson, and Hicks feel free to lock it, I'm done with it!
                Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

                Comment


                • Re: We should trade for this guy

                  A lot of talk for such a mediocre player.

                  Pacers sure will miss Jacksons.....
                  • Horrible FG%
                  • Below Average 3%
                  • Below Average FT%
                  • Non-Existent Rebounding
                  • High Number of Turnovers
                  • Un-Clutch Play
                  • Horrible Shot Selection
                  • Technical Foul Every Other Game
                  • Mental Lapses Every Game
                  • And Everyones Favorite......Multiple Run-Ins with the Law

                  Comment


                  • Re: We should trade for this guy

                    While I agree with Alpollo in the sense that these guys are gone, there is still validity in bringing up the situation. I think it shows incompetence in upper management at the Fieldhouse. Some are still arguing about who's better, who's better, who's best. It obvious to me the Pacers have been taking it on the chin in the last few trades. It's relevant to the future of this team if these guys are gonna continue to make these kind of trades/moves.

                    My point is whether you liked Jack or not, trading away who we did and what was spent to get them in the first place for what was received is out of whack with good management.

                    Trading Crosh and his expiring contract for the oft injured and apparently troubled MD wasn't that great of a trade. He could have been used at the deadline and possibly made the Jackson trade a little better. Maybe the Pacers wouldn't have had to take on such lenghty contracts or received higher quality players from elsewhere etc...

                    The AJ for Marshall, Powell and DA...Marshall and Powell don't count anymore they've proven to be filler. DA for AJ (something I'm sure will be argued against) hasn't proven to really be that great of trade either. AJ certainly has more gas in the tank and is actually a better basketball player at this point in time.

                    James White......and signing him to a guaranteed contract was completely unnecessary.

                    Ron for a 1/2 season rental of Peja ( Morway actually secured the trade exception)

                    Baston signing...

                    Runi signing....

                    Greene signing....

                    Carlisle extension...and likely firing the following season

                    Tinsley's college coach hiring...

                    Chuck Person as defensive coach...

                    1st rounder for Al....

                    Exercising Harrison's contract extension...

                    Samaki Walker signing...

                    Selecting Lorbek w/ a 2nd rounder....

                    Eddie Gill signing....

                    Exercising Primoz's contract extension... although saved by the expansion bell on that one

                    trading Miller & Mercer for Pollard & Ferry (1st move w/ Larry) I know this was ages ago but they did trade two servicable players for none.



                    All of those combined leave me with absolutely no faith in whoever is in charge.

                    Granger and Williams selections being the only positives really.
                    I'm in these bands
                    The Humans
                    Dr. Goldfoot
                    The Bar Brawlers
                    ME

                    Comment


                    • Re: We should trade for this guy

                      Originally posted by Y2J View Post
                      A lot of talk for such a mediocre player.

                      Pacers sure will miss Jacksons.....
                      • Horrible FG%
                      • Below Average 3%
                      • Below Average FT%
                      • Non-Existent Rebounding
                      • High Number of Turnovers
                      • Un-Clutch Play
                      • Horrible Shot Selection
                      • Technical Foul Every Other Game
                      • Mental Lapses Every Game
                      • And Everyones Favorite......Multiple Run-Ins with the Law
                      He ain't a mediocre player.
                      • His FG percentage is relatively average compared to the modern day NBA swingman. Obviously it could be higher, but it's never been 39% or anything awful like that.
                      • His 3-point range is pretty solid. Inconsistent, yes, but definitely can hit from downtown with ease. Hell, he hit 4 straight 3's on 4 straight possessions in a game last year.
                      • His FT% is fine, I don't understand how you can say it's below average.
                      • His rebounding technique is fine (Jack does a nice job boxing out sometimes), but his game has never been predicated on needing to grab boards. He's usually the #1 or 2 scorer and a perimeter player, his duty has usually been to get to the other end of the floor.
                      • High number of turnovers. Yeah, he can be a walking turnover, I agree. But he is a good passer with very good court vision for the most part.
                      • Un-clutch play? Now you're just talking out of your ***. I ain't even going to disgrace myself by refuting that delusional claim.
                      • Horrible shot selection, sometimes. Nellie said a couple weeks ago that he lets Jack and J-Rich take bad shots because they're near-dominant players and you have to let them roam free a little or else they can't be as effective. However, whenever JO was hurt, Jack had to take some bad shots because he was far and away the primary option, and it was his responsibility to put up 20-22 PPG in JO's absence (which he did).
                      • He's been top-10 in technicals 3 of the last 4 years, so obviously he talks too much to the refs. But "every other game" is sensationalizing the matter, as usual.
                      • Mental lapses every game? Nah. He's constantly pointing his teammates into position on both ends and does a lot more of the little things than his haters will ever notice. His temper can get the best of him and he'll lose concentration, but it is on a far less frequent occasion than some of y'all love to think.
                      • His "multiple run-ins with the law" were both in direct involvement with the Pacers. Let's not forget JO was in the brawl as well and had to deal with the law. He had a spotless record until the brawl and the other incident was in direct, yet misguided and irresponsible, defense of his Pacers teammates.


                      Damn, I feel good about that post right there.

                      Comment


                      • Re: We should trade for this guy

                        I haven't read this entire thread, but I just want to say that I don't understand why people get mad at TPTB for getting rid of Jackson. There's plenty other things to be mad at TPTB for, but if Jackson hadn't acted like such a punk, he'd still be here. If he would have just played ball and left things at that, we never would have had to move him.
                        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                        Comment


                        • Re: We should trade for this guy

                          Nellie called Jackson near-dominant? Eek.
                          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                          Comment


                          • Re: We should trade for this guy

                            Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                            Nellie called Jackson near-dominant? Eek.
                            He just shut down, not contained, but flat out shut down a potential league MVP - and was 2nd on his team in scoring with a well rounded stat line of assists/rebounds while doing so. That kind of two way performance isn't near-dominant to you?

                            Comment


                            • Re: We should trade for this guy

                              Originally posted by Alpolloloco View Post
                              I'm sick of talking about Stephen Jackson, that dude is gone and will never come back. I hope he does well with the Warriors and may he win 9 more rings with them. But we need to concentrate on the current team and how we can get back to being a contender, even if it means playing in the Finals against Jackson and the Warriors (if that ever happens count me in as a front row spectator).

                              We need to decide to built around JO for another year or ship him and Tinsley and go in full rebuilding mode.

                              So every poster like Dat Dude, Ajbry and everyone else who still isn't over the fact that Jackson isn't on our team anymore do us a favor and create your own Jackson forum website and post anything you want on it. I hope this will be the last topic about Jackson, and Hicks feel free to lock it, I'm done with it!

                              Thanks, I have been burning to make this type of post, however out of fear of the thought police, I have refrained from doing so.

                              I joined PD thinking it was a Pacer board, however it appears that I was mistaken, and it is really a GS board. Am I wrong for thinking this way?

                              Comment


                              • Re: We should trade for this guy

                                Enjoy Dr. Hyde and Mr. Jekyll.

                                He's a great player to have on a team with solid veteran leadership and a team that has a #1 and #2 scoring option ahead of him...but when he's the main player on your offense besides JO and he is one the veteran leaders..you are setting yourself up for failure.

                                Like I said, Jackson is a great guy to have on a team so long as he isn't the star player. Of course, ever since he got to Golden State, he's been playing like an all-star. He's had a few of his off games, but he's been pretty good over there. Makes you wonder what the rest of the Pacers could do with a coach who focuses on offensive efficiency rather then half court sets and defense.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X